imntifiers · 2014-03-24 · kozeki (1985), entwistle and ramsden (1983), and watkins (1983, 1984,...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 332 877 SE 052 136

AUTHOR BouJaoude, Saouma B.; Giuliano, Frank J.TITLE The Relationship between Students' Approaches to

Studying, Formal Reasoning Ability, Prior Knowledge,and Gender and Their Achievement in Chemistry.

PUB DATE Apr 91NOTE 29p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

National Association for Research in Science Teaching(Lake Geneva, WI, April 7-10, 1991).

PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Academic Achievement; *Chemistry; College Science;

Developmental Stages; Higher Education; LogicalThinking; *Nonmajors; *Prior Learning; ScienceEducation; *Sex Differences; Student Attitudes;*Thinking Skills

IMNTIFIERS Test of Logical Thinking (Tobin and Capie)

ABSTRACT

The main purposes of this study were to investigatethe relationships among approaches to studying, prior knowledge,logical thinking ability, attitude, and performance in collegefreshman chemistry and to explore the effect of gender on the samevariables. Subjects were 199 students (114 females, 85 males)enrolled in the second semester of a freshman chemistry course fornon-science majors at a private university in New York State.Irstruments used included seven subscalea of the Approaches toStudying Inventory, the Attitude Toward Chemistry Questionnaire, andthe Test of Logical ThInking (T,MT). The students' grades on anhour-long exam early ln the semester were used as measures of thestudent3' prior know 7e, v.:. e the semester cumulative finalexamination scores wers, used as measures of achievement in chemistry.Students in this study had slightly higher scores on reproducingorientation than on meaning orientation, a pattern that confirmsEntwistle and Ramsden's (1983) findings with a similar group ofnon-science majors. The results of a stepwise multiple regressionshowed that prior knowledge, TOLT scores, and meaning orientaticnaccounted for 32% of the variance on the final examination scores.(18 references) (Author/KR)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.

***********************************************************************

Approaches to studying

1

The Relationship Between Students' Approaches to

Studying, Formal Reasoning Ability, Prior Knowledge, and

Gender and Their Achievement in Chemistry

Saouma B. BouJaoude

Frank J. Giuliano

Department of Science Teaching

Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Saouma Bouaoude

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

U.S. E'EPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research end ImprovementEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

r This document has been reProduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

r Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction Quality

ocents of view or opinions statedin this document do tic! necessarily represent officialOE RI position or pohcy

Running Head: APPROACHES TO STUDYING

on Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association forfor Research in Science Teaching, Fontana,WI, April 7-10, 1991.

rt

o lEST COPY AVAILABLE

2

r.


2


Studying, Formal Reasoning Ability, Prior Knowledge, and

Gender and Th,ir Achievement in Chemistry

Abstract

The two main purposes of this study were I) to investigate

the relationships among approaches to studying, prior knowledge,

logical thinking ability, attitude and performance in college

freshman chemistry; and 2) to explore the effect of gender on the

same variables. Subjects for this study were 199 students (114

females, 85 males) enrolled in the second semester of a freshman

chemistry course for non-science majors at a private university in

New York State. Instruments used in this study included seven sub-

scales of the Approaches to Studying Inventory, the Attitude

Toward Chemistry Questionnaire, and the Test of Logical Thinking

(TOLT) . The students' grades on an hour-long exam early in the

semester were used as measures of the students' prior knowledge,

while the semester cumulative final examination scores were used

as measures of achievement in chemistry.

Students in this study had slightly higher scores on

reproducing orientation than on meaning orientation, a pattern

that confirms Entwistle and Ramsden's (1983) findings with a

similar group of non-science majors. The results of a stepwise

multiple Legression showed that prior knowledge, TOLT scores, and

meaning orientation accounted for 32% of the variance on the final

examination scores.

3


3


Studying, Formal Reasoning Ability, Prior Knowledge. and

Gender and Their Achievement in Chemistry

IntroductionThe relationship among prior knowledge, formal reasoning

ability, and achievement in science has bc!en a topic of interest

in science education research for several years (e.g. Chandran,

Treagust, & Tobin, 1987; Lawson, 1983; Zeitoun, 1989) . Lawson

(1983) and Zeitoun (1989) established that the effect of prior

knowledge on achievement exceeds that of formal reasoning ability.

Conversely, Chandran et. al.(1987) found that the effect of formal

reasoning exceeded that of prior knowledge. However, since

science achievement can be measured in different ways, the

seemingly contradictory results can be accounted for by the

different tasks used to measure achievement (Falls & Voss, 1985).

Consequently, the types of tasks used in measuring achievement

must be clearly specified, Additionally, for research results to

affect practice, the relationships between students' aptitudes and

their achievement using regular classroom examinations taken in

classroom settings must be investigated (Falls et al., 1985).

In another area of research, Clarke (1986), Entwistle and

Kozeki (1985), Entwistle and Ramsden (1983), and Watkins (1983,

1984, 1986), investigated the relationships between students'

approaches to studying and their achievement in different areas of

the curriculum. Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) and Ramsden and

4


4

Entwistle (1981) interviewed many students to derive three main

orientations to studying': a meaning orientation (MC), a

reproducing orientation (R0), and an achieving orientation (AO).

Entwistle et al. (1983) described the meaning orientation as "deep

approach out of interest" (p. 51), and the reproducing orientation

as a "surface, instrumental approach" (p. 51). Achieving

orientation was described as a "strategic approach" with "hope for

success" (Entwistle & Kozeki, 1985) . The studies reported by

Entwistle et al. (1983, 1985) suggest that students' approaches to

studying have significant relationships with achievement in

different subject areas at both the university and high school

level.

An important yet little understood area of research is the

relationship between students' approaches to studying, prior

knowledge, logical thinking ability, and attitude with

achievement, as well as the relationships among the above

variables and gender. Consequently, the two main purposes of this

lin cognitive psychology research, the investigation of

students study processes is rooted in the idea of levels of

processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Craik & Watkins, (1973) . On

the other hand, the research of Entwistle & Ramsden (1983) is

theoretically rooted in the tradition that derives categories of

students' approaches to studying from qualitative analyses of

students' reports of their own study processes.

Approach j to studying

5

study were 1) to investigate the relationships between approaches

to studying, prior knowledge, logical thinking ability, attitude

and performance in college freshman chemistry, taking into account

the types of tasks used to measure achievement; and 2) to explore

the gender differences on the same variables.

Method

Subjects

Subjects for this study were 220 students (128 females and 92

males, average age 18.9 years; 88.18% Whites/Caucasians, 6.82%

African-Americans, 3.20% Oriental; 1.8% did not report their

racial background) enrolled in the second semester of a freshman

chemistry course for non-science majors at a private university in

New York State. Fifty-six percent of these students graduated in

the top 20% of their high-school class, 91% took at least one high-

school chemistry class, and 26% took and passed the New York State

ReTfrits Chemistry Examination. Complete data were available for

only 199 students (114 females and 85 males), because 21 of the

original group dropped out of the course by the semester's end.

Description of the non-science majors' chemistry course

The topics covered in this chemistry course included:

saturated hydrocarbons, unsaturated hydrocarbons, alcohols,

phenols, ethers, aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids, amines,

polymers, carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids, polypeptides,

proteins, and nucleic acids and heredity. In addition, the course

instructor incorporated the topics of genetic engineering, drug


6

abuse, and chemical pollution into his lectures.

The students met three times per week. Two of these meetings

were reserved for lectures by the course instructor. The third

meeting, typically held on Fridays, was conducted by graduate

teaching assistants who reviewed the week's topics and wwwered

students' questions. The students were also involved in bi weekly

laboratory exercises on topics related to the lectures. Students'

course grades were based on two hour-long exams, a cumulative

final exam, and a laboratory grade. The two hour-long exams and

the final exam were each composed of 25 multiple-choice questions

and were machine-scored.

InstrumentsThe following instruments were used in the study:

a) Demographic Questionnaire. This was used to collect

information about such variables as sex, age, racial background,

ranking in graduating high-school class, parents' educational

backgrounds, and number and type of chemistry courses taken at the

high-school level.

(b) The Approaches to Studyina Inventory. Seven of the 16

sub-scales (29 items)2 from this instrument, which was developed by

Entwistle and Ramsden (1983), were used to measure the students'

approaches to studying. These approaches included: deep approach

2See Entwistle and Kozeki (1985) for a similar design used to

compare British and Hungarian adolescents.

7


7

(DA, active questioning in learning, four items); relating ideas

(RI, relating ideas to other parts of topic under study, four

items); intrinsic motivation (IM, interest in learning for

learning's sake, four items); surface approach (SA, preo,.cupation

with memorization, six items); syllabus boundness (SE, relying on

teachers to define learning tasks, three items); extrinsic

motivation (EM, interest in courses for the qualifications they

offer, four items); and achievement motivation (AM, competitive

and confident, four items)3. Students were asked to respond to the

items in the questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale ranging

from A (Always True, 5 points) to E (Never True, 1 point) . All

scores on the sub-scales were averaged, with a maximum score of 5.

A meaning orientation (MO) score was computed by averaging

students' scores on the deep approach, relating ideas, and

intrinsic motivation sub-scales with a maximum score of 5. Also,

a reproducing orientation (RO)4 score was computed by averaging

students' scores on the surface approach, syllabus boundness, and

extrinsic motivataon sub-scales, with a maximum score of 5. The

sub-scales used in this study have reported internal consistency

3The description in parentheses of each sub-scale was adclpted

from Entwistle et al. (1983).

4See Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) and Ramsden and Entwistle

(1981) for a detailed discussion of the components of MO and RO.


8

reliability coefficients from .49 to .78 (Entwistle et al., 1983).

In this study, these reliabilities ranged from .47 to .56 for all

the sub-scales.

The following are examples of the items used in this

instrument:

Always NeverTrue True

I generally try hard to understand things Athat at the beginning seem difficult.

As I am reading new material in chemistry A B C D E

1 try to relate it to what I already knowon the topic.

While I am atudying chemistry, I often A B C D E

think of real life situations to which thematerial I am learning would be useful.

I have to concentrate on memorizing a lot Aof what I have to learn.

(c) The tittitude Toward Chemistry Ouestionnaire (ATT). This

instrument consisted of 10 items and used a semantic differential

technique to measure students' attitudes toward chemistry. The

directions of the 7-point adjective continua in the items were

randomly altered to decrease the possibility of response set. An

average rating, with a maximum of 7, was computed for each

individual in this study. According to Mueller (1986),

test-ietest reliability coefficients and internal consistency

coefficients of about 0.90 are not uncommon for instruments using

semantic differentials. This instrument had an internal

consistency reliability coefficient of .89 for this study.

9


9

d) Test of Logical Thinking (TOLT). Developed by Tobin and

Capie (1981), tnis instrument consists of 10 items (five groups of

two items each) selected to measure several components of formal

thought; these include proportional (PROP), combinatorial (COMB),

probabilistic (PROB), and correlational thinking (CORR), as well

as controlling variables (CV). The 10 items of the TOLT contain

two responses each - an answer as well as a reason for having

selected the answer. Individuals must respond cnrrectly to both

components for the response to be considered correct. The TOLT

has a reported internal consistency reliability c6efficient of .84

and a value of .745 for this study.

Other sources of data for this study were the students' grades

on the first hour-long exam and the final examination given in the

spring semester of 1990. The first hour-long exam, used as a

pretest (PRE), consisted of 25 multiple-choice questions and

covered the pre requisite knowledge required for the course, as

determined by the instructor. The difficulty indices of the

questions on the first hour-long examination ranged from 0.21 to

0.93, with a mean difficulty index of 0.66. The discrimination

indexes of the same items ranged from 0.06 to 0.75, with a mean

discrimination index of 0.38. The internal consistency

reliability coefficient of this test was 0.71. The course final

5Zeitoun (1989) reports a reliability coefficient of .76 for

the TOLT in a study with 17 and 18 year old students

1(1


10

examination (FINAL) was a cumulative examination that included 25

multiple-choice questions. The difficulty indices of the

questions ranged from 0.11 to 0.95, with a mean difficulty index

of 0.65. The discrimination indices of the test questions ranged

from 0.15 to 0.90, with a mean discrimination index of 0.41. The

final exam had an internal consistency reliability coefficient of

0.70. An analysis of the individual items on the final

examination, using the description of knowledge as a taxonomy

c,;tegory provided in Bloom (1986), shows that all the questions

were at the knowledge level.

Procedures

Students were asked to respond to the Demographic

Questionnaire, the seven sub-scales of the Approaches to Studying

Inventory, and the Attitude Toward Chemistry Questionnaire during

a lecture in the first week of the 1990 winter semester. These

same students were given the TOLT during the first and second

weeks of the semester in their respective laboratory sessions.

Additionally, the students' grades on the first hour-long exam and

the second-semester final examination were obtained at the end of

the spring semester (May 1990).

Results

Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the

variables used in this study for the total sample, as well as for

each gender. Tables 2, 3, and 4 present the means and standard

deviations for the total sample and for females and males as a

11.


11

function of formal reasoning ability.

Insert Table 1 about here

Tnsert Tables 2, 3, and 4 about here

Table 1 shows that students in this study have a higher score

on reproducing orientation (RO) than on meaning orientation (MO).

Moreover, Table 1 shows that the scores on the sub-scales of the

meaning orientation and reproducing orientation are the highest

for deep approach (DA) and syllabus boundness (SB), and the lowest

score was on surface approach (SA) . These pattern F. are evident

for both female and male students. Also, Table 1 shows that

female students have a higher meaningful orientation score (MO)

than male students. However, this difference is not statistically

significant at the .01 level (t=-1.76, p<.07), the alpha level set

for the t-tests conducted in this study. Also, Table 1 shows

that, while the scores of females on the sub-scales of the

meaningful and reproducing orientations are consistently higher

than those of males, none of these differences reached statistical

significance at the specified alpha level. Also, there are no

statistically significant differences between females and males on

the scores for achievement motivation (AM) . When TOLT scores are

examined with respect to gender, there is a significant difference

favoring male students (t=2.4, p<..01). Finally, no significant

differences exist between male and female students on the final

1 2


12

exam scores (FINAL), pretest scores (PRE), and attitude scores

(ATT).

Tables 5, 6, and 7 present Pearson correlation coefficients for

the total sample, for male students, and for female students,

respectively.

Insert Tables 5, 6, and 7 about here

Table 5 shows significant correlations between final exam

scores (FINAL) and pretest scores (PRE), and meaning orientation

(MO), and TOLT. In addition, there are significant correlations

between, achievement motivation (AM) and meaning orientation (MO),

achievement motivation (AM) and reproducing orientation (R0),

attitude (ATT) and meaning orientation (MO), and attitude (ATT)

and achievement motivation (AM). Finally, when correlations are

computed for males and females separately (Tables 6 and 7),

meaning orientation (MO) is significantly correlated with final

exam (FINAL) for males but for females; however, TOLT is

significantly correlated with the final examination (FINAL) for

both sexes.

Since the variables correlated with one another, a stepwise

multiple regression analysis was applied to the data using the SAS

Statistical Package, version 5, to determine which variable(s)

were the best predictors of performance on the filial examination

(FINAL) . Scores on the following served as predictors: a) meaning

1 3


13

orientation (MO); b) reproducing orientation (R0); c) achievement

motivation (AM); d) pretest (PRE); e) TOLT; f) attitude

questionnaire (ATT); g) and Gender. A second stepwise mult::ple

regression was conducted using the sub-scales of meaning

orientation (deep approach, relating ideas, and intrinsic

atotivation) and reproducing orientation (surface approach,

syllabus boundness, and extrinsic motivation) as predictors. The

results of the first multiple regression (Table 8) show that the

pretest (PRE), TOLT, and meaning orientation (MO) are significant

predictors of FINAL, accounting for approximately 32% of the

variance on the final examination score; meaning orientation (MO)

and the TOLT scores contributed significant, although small,

prediction above the contribution of thr pretest scores (PRE).

The results of the second multiple regression (Table 9) show a

similar pattern but with deep approach (DA) the only significant

predictor among the sub-scales.

Since the patterns of correlations presented in Tables 6 and 7

differed for males and females, separate stepwise multiple

regression analyses were conducted for the two groups. When MO,

RO, PRE, TOLT, AM, and ATT were used as predictor variables, PRE,

TOLT and MO accounted for approximately 34% of the variance on the

final examination for male students; however, they accounted for

onlq about 30% of the variance on the final examination for the

female students (the difference being mainly due to the

contribution of PRE. However, there were no differences between

4


14

males and females when the meaning orientation and reproducing

orientation were replaced by their sub-scales.

Insert Tables 8 and 9 about here

DiscussionThe results of this study confirm the findings of Lawson (1983)

and Zeitoun (1989), who asserted that prior knowledge is the best

predictor of achievement,followed by formal reasoning ability.

The results of this study also confirm the findings of Entwistle

and Kozeki (1985), Entwistle and Ramsden (1983), and Watkins

(1983, 1984, 1986), who found a significant relationship between

meaning orientation (MO) and achievement. Finally, the results

confirm the findings from previous research (Baker, 1987; Walkosz

& Yeany, 1984) that, on the average, males score higher than

females on the TOLT.

The stepwise multiple regression shows that the meaningful

approach scores (MO), as measured by the Approaches to Studying

Inventory, allow a significant, although small, improvement over

predicting of chemistry final examination scores (FINAL) solely by

previous chemistry test and TOLT scores. This finding, coupled

with similar research findings by Watkins (1983, 1984, 1986),

indicates the possible importance of the approaches students use

in studying to their success in chemistry. However, the

relationship between students' approaches to studying and their

achievement in chemistry may depend on the type of test used to


15

measure that achievement. The relationship may be weak if the

test is designed to measure rote learning of facts, as in this

study, rather than the acquisition of meaningful relationships

between chemistry concepts.

According to Entwistle et al. (1985), "understanding depends

upon on both comprehension and operation learning; the grasping of

relationships has to be supported by an appropriate use of

evidence and detail" (p. 136). Thus, it is important that

students have a balance between a meaning orientation and

reproducing orientation, and more specifically between a deep

approach and a surface approach to studying. The lack of emphasis

on either one of these approaches might be problematic. Total

emphasis on meaningful learning and a lack of emphasis on rote

learning may result an inadequate knowledge base necessary for

their success in science courses.

Then, how do we explain why students have higher deep approach

scores than surface approach scores, confirming Entwistle and

Kozeki's (1985) research with British and Hungarian students, and

that meaning orientation and deep approach rather than reproducing

orientation and surface approach appear to be significant

predictors of success on a chemistry examination that emphasizes

rote learning? Part of this result might be explained by response

set; that is, 3tudents may find it socially unacceptable to say

that they memorize (Entwistle et al., 1985) when they really do;

consequently, their surface approach and reproducing orientation


16

scores do not reflect their actual approaches to studying.

Conversely, it can be argued that some of the students used their

deep approach and meaning orientation to create meaningful links

between the disparate facts emphasized by the examination and the

course, which is reflected by higher scores on the final chemistry

examinatton. Consequently, meaning orientation and deep approach

appear to be significant predictors of freshman chemistry grades.

Implications for teaching

There are at least three implications that can be drawn from

this study. First, the findings underscore the importance of both

prior knowledge and logical thinking abilities as predictors of

success in chemistry -- even in courses that emphasize and test

rote learning -- with possible implications for emphasizing both

in instruction. Second, approaches to studying may be important

factors to consider, in addition to prior knowledge and logical

thinking ability. For example, this study showed that a meaning

orientation with a deep approach to studying is a significant

predictor of success in chemistry, which suggesi-s that students

should be encouraged to actively question what they are learning

and to relate ideas to other parts of the topic under study.

Third, the Approaches to Studying Inventory might provide teachers

with information about students' unbalanced study approaches; that

is, it may identify students who favor a meaningful approach over

a reproducing approach or vice versa, with implications for

corrective work with these students.

1 7


17

References

Baker, D. (1987) . The influence of role-specific self concept and

sex-role identity on career choices in science. Journal of

Research in Science Teachina, ZA, 739-756.

Bloom, B. (1986) (Ed.). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New

York: Longman Inc.

Chandran, S., Treagust, D., & Tobin, K. (1987) . The role of

cognitive factors in chemistry achievement. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 2.1, 145-160.

Clarke, R.(1986). Students' approaches to learning in ar

innovative medical school: A cross-sectional study. British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 1E4 309-321.

Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972) . Levels of processing: a

framework for memory research Journal of Verbal Learning and

Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.

Cralk, F. & Watkins, M. (1973) . The role of rehearsal in short

term memory. Journal of Verbal Learping and Verbal Behavior,

12, 599-607.

Entwistle, N., & Kozeki, B. (1985). Relationships between school

motivation, approaches to studying, and attainment, among

British and Hungarian adolescents. British Journal of

Educational Psycholoay, 55, 124-137.

Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student

learning. Worcester, Great Britain: Billing & Sons Ltd.

18


18

Falls, T., & Voss, B. (1985). The ability of high school

chemistry students to solve computational problems requiring

proportional reasoning as affected by item in-task variables.

paper presented at the annual meeting of the National

Association for Research in Science Teaching, French Lick

Springs, IN, April 15-18. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service

No ED 257 654)

Lawson, A. (1983) . Predicting science achievement: The role of

developmental level, disembedding ability, mental capacity,

prior knowledge, and belief. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, za, 117-129.

Mueller, D. (1986) . Measuring social attitudes. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. (1981). Effects of academic

departments on students' approaches to studying. British

Journal of Educational Psycholoav, al, 368-383.

Tobin, K., & Capie, W. (1981). Development and validation of a

group tesc of logical thinking. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, Alf 413-424.

Walkosz, M., & Yeany, R. (1984). Effects of lab instruction

emphasizing process skills on achievement of college students

0e I - - - II (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 244805)

Watkins, D. (1983). Assessing tertiary study processes. Human

Learning, 21, 76-85.


19

Watkins, D. (1984) . Learning strategies as threshold variables in

the prediction of tertiary grades. Ejucational and

Psychological Measurement, AA, 523-525.

Watkins, D. (1986). Learning processes and background

characteristics as predictors of tertiary grades. Edlicationta

anthaaysjicasx'cieasalerllerit, AL, 199-203.

Zeitoun, H. (1989). The relationship bet,leen abstract concept

achievement and prior knowledge, formal reasoning ability, and

gender. International Journal of Science Education, la,

227-234.

20

Table 1.Means and Standard Deviations for_All_Variables Uzed in the Studyfor the Total Sample and Broken Down by Gende,-.

Total Sample (N=199)Mean SD

FemalesMean

(N=114)

SDMalesMean

(N=85)

SD

FINAL 65.95 14.59 65.58 15.19 66.45 13.76PRE 69.68 17.86 70.37 18.97 68.76 16.40MO 3.18 0.47 3.22 0.43 3.11 0.50*

DA 3.53 0.52 3.59 0.48 3.47 0.58RI 3.25 0.61 3.31 0.56 3.16 0.64*IM 2.72 0.61 2.76 0.62 2.67 0.59

RO 3.30 0.34 3.31 0.37 3.28 0.30SA 2.64 0.51 2.65 0.50 2.62 0.52SB 3.52 0.57 3.55 0.54 3.49 0.60EM 2.92 0.55 2.95 0.60 2.87 0.47

AM 3.54 0.61 3.52 0.59 3.57 0.64TOLT 6.06 2.62 5.70 2.67 6.55 2.49**

PROP 1.44 0.83 1.34 0.87 1.57 0.75cv 0.83 0.90 0.81 0.91 0.86 0.91PROS 1.31 0.79 1.23 0.82 1.43 0.75CORR 1.25 0.79 1.19 0.83 1.33 0.73COMB 1.23 0.78 1.13 0.81 1.37 0.73

ATT 3.76 1.00 3.78 1.00 3.73 0.99

* p<.07

"P<.01

Table 2 .

Meaning Orientation (

4

Function of Students '

111-71 9 9 )

MO) , Reproducing Orientation (RO) _Achiamamaat(FINAL) as a

Formal Reasoning_Naility_jja_the_Ts2tai_aample.-I* 41 .

Tolt Percent

Range of sample MO SD RO SD AM SD PRE SD FINAL SD

0-2 13.1

3-4 17.6

5-6 21.2

7-8 28.4

9-10 19.8

3.31 0.42 3.36 0.44 3.40 0.63 67.04 2n. 9 63.04 14.48

3.12 0.57 3.24 0.43 3.53 0.68 67.33 14.92 61.73 11.83

3.18 0.43 3.34 0.26 3.60 0.56 66.48 19.15 63.07 14.81

3.18 0.38 3.30 0.32 3.62 0.55 70.07 20.03 67.40 16.02

3.13 0.55 3.26 0.30 3.46 0.68 76.19 12.21 72.19 12.80

22

-

Table 3.Meaning Orientation (MO). Reproducing Orientation (RO), AchievementMotivation (AM). Pretest (PRE): and Final Examination (FINAL) as AFunction of Formal ReDsoning Ability tor Female Students (N=114).

Tolt Percent

Range of sample MO SD RO SD AM SD PRE SD FINAL SD

0-2 16.4 3.21 0.38 3.32 0.47 3.31 0.61 64.67 21.70 60.89 15.00

3-4 20.3 3.22 0.54 3.28 0.47 3.57 0.60 67.00 14.98 61.17 11.94

5-6 17.2 3.30 0.37 3.40 0.31 3.66 0.54 71.78 15.61 65.47 14.25

7-8 32.0 3.21 0.35 3.30 0.30 3.61 0.53 71.11 23.05 66.33 17.77

9-10 14.1 3.14 0.57 3.25 0.31 3.29 0.67 78.12 12..42 71.06 12.77

23

Table 4.Meaning OrientaticlMotivation (AM), Pretest (PRE)/ and Final Examination (FINAL) as aFunction of Formal Reasoning Ability for Male Students (N=85).

u :11- o I . 1' III-

Telt

Range

Percent

of sample MO SD RO SD AM SD PRE SD FINAL SD

0-2 8.7 3.57 0.43 3.49 0.31 3.64 0.57 73.14 18.29 68.57 12.313-4 13.0 2.81 0.45 3.13 0.J3 3.44 0.88 61.18 14.79 61.67 11.875-6 26.1 3.07 0.47 3.29 0.19 3.54 0.58 62.61 21.32 61.91 15.157-8 23.9 3.13 0.44 3.31 0.36 3.65 0.58 68.0C 12.27 65.56 12.059-10 20.3 3.13 0.56 3.27 0.29 3.58 0.67 74.89 12.14 72.96 13.03

Table 5.Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between the Different Variables Usedin-the_StAILLY-Lar-aDIAL-SsImPle-atalaa

FINAL PRE MO RO AM TOLT ATT

FINALPRE

MORo

AMTOLT

ATT

1.00

0.51*

0.16**0.050.06

0.24*

0.07

1.00

0.050.09

0.04

0.16

0.07

1.00

0.11

0.27*

-0.070.31*

1.00

0.23*

-0.07-0.12

1.00

0.050.16**

1.00

-0.01 1.00

*p<.0005**P<.03

%$

Table 6.Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between the Different Variahles Usedin the Study for Female Students (N=l14).

FINAL PRE MO RO AM TOLT ATT

FINALPREMORO

AMTOLTATT

1.00

e.50*

0.06

0.00

0.060.26**-0.04

1.00

-0.160.030.02

0.19***0.02

1.00

0.030.32*-0.050.34*

1.000.31*

-0.07-0.11

1.00

0.03

0.08

1.00

-0.04 1.00

*P<.0005**P<.005***P<.05

GO'>d** c000'>d*

00'1 SO*0 **GrO 91.0- **IWO C1*0 **Zr0 LIV 00"1 900 1700- 50.0- WO **M0 Lau

00'1 Cr() **Cr0 L0.0 L0.0 WV 00'1 OZ.() 91.0 ST'0 (>1

00'T **9r0 **8r0 OW 00'1 4,ES'0 Ud

00'T qVNI3

WV OI OW qVNIa

_ _ g8= P9-41-uurquire-E-4ual@MG atlq tiaamqag-T4maToTg;ao0 UOT4PTa1,703 UOSJUga

aTqPI

Table 8.- - - 11 II

- I . . II I

ary for the Prediction of Performance

Step Variableentered

R2 Prob>F

1 PRE 0.26 61.14 .00012 TOLT 0.30 9.03 .0030

3 MO 0.32 5.11 .0250

C.

Table 9.Stepwise Multiple Regression Summary for the Prediction of Performance

I 0. 4. a.. .110 f 0-

Sub-scaleia_uf_ the Approaches to Studying Inventory AS Prediator8.

Step Variableentered

R2 Prob>F

1 PRE 0.26 61.14 .00012 TOLT 0.29 9.04 .00303 DA 0.32 6.81 .0098

29

imntifiers · 2014-03-24 · kozeki (1985), entwistle and ramsden (1983), and watkins (1983, 1984,...

Documents